Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

SC: 52% Haley, 36% Sheheen (Rasmussen 8/25)

Topics: poll , South Carolina

Rasmussen
8/25/10; 500 likely voters, 4.5% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)

South Carolina

2010 Governor
52% Haley (R), 36% Sheheen (D) (chart)

Favorable / Unfavorable
Nikki Haley: 64 / 25
Vincent Sheheen: 44 / 35

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 39 / 60
Gov. Sanford: 47 / 51

 

Comments
Chris V.:

I must say I'm surprised that Sanford's approval ratings are as high as they are after that whole Argentinian mistress fiasco.

____________________

jmartin4s:

According to the internals of this poll Sheheen Fav/Unfav with indies is 55/28. This means that even if he loses this year, which is likely, he would make a competitive candidate in a future statewide election.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Is Crist for or against ObamaCare? We STILL don't know. How many flip-flops has this guy done on the topic in the last few months?

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/116145-crist-says-he-misspoke-on-healthcare-

____________________

Field Marshal:

This was Krauthammer's best article he's ever written and sums up a lot of the posters on this site.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html

____________________

sjt22:

Krauthhammer is a neo-con hack who never saw a problem that he didn't think he could bomb his way out of.

____________________

sjt22:

@ Chris V

Easy answer: he's a Republican. If there was as D by his name, his favorables in SC would be shot to hell. He's part of the tribe, so therefore it doesn't matter what he does. Just look at Gingrich.

____________________

sjt22:

@ Field Marshall

If Crist is such a snake, why did your party elect him so many times? Why does he still have a favorable job rating?

____________________

John1:

Wow, what a bevy of truly useless and ignorant statements.

____________________

sjt22:

@ John

Please explain.

Is Krauthammer not a neocon hack who survives off of wingnut welfare? Hell, even Bush referred to him as one of the "bomber boys", since that seems to be his main policy goal. Have a problem: bomb it!

Is Gingrich not a popular leader in the Republican party whose also a hypocritical scumbag? A serial adulterer who left his wife while she was getting cancer treatments for a younger women women he was having an affair with (who he later left for another younger woman? Did he not try to impeach the President for a personal matter while doing the same or worse in his own life? Do Republicans care about (or even mention) these facts when throwing their support and money behind him? Please tell me where I'm wrong.

Is Charlie Crist not the elected and well liked Republican governor of Florida? Has he not been elected to many offices as a Republican? Does he not still have Republican supporters?

____________________

Gtfan4ever:

"Did he not try to impeach the President for a personal matter while doing the same or worse in his own life"

Clinton was impeached for lying and obstruction of justice and not for the actuall act of having an affair.

____________________

Chris V.:

Field Marshal, that Krauthammer column is a barrel of laughs. The overriding problem, of course, is the staggering hypocrisy of criticizing the liberals for relying on their stereotypes of conservatives (they're all racist, they're all bigots, etc.) to shape their opinions towards their positions...while, at the same time, his entire column does the EXACT SAME THING to liberals. He picks out the talking points about liberals that he thinks are the most unflattering and just goes ahead and decides that they must blankly apply to all liberals. FM, you seem like a smart fellow. Do you not see the obvious hypocrisy here?

"That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking."

This really tells you all you need to know about the article. As I mentioned, he scolds liberals for relying on tired stereotypes of conservatives in the same sentence that he relies on his own set of tired stereotypes of liberals instead of trying to establish a fair and intelligent argument about the differences between liberals and conservatives. Not a surprise, but depressing since so many people on both sides of the aisle fall for this sort of bullshit.

Also, nice to see that the liberal media conspiracy has made it's obligatory appearance. Moving on...

"Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president."

I do not believe that racism is the main motivation for the formation of the Tea Party. I think it is more of a reaction to the increasing polarization of our political culture, and the paranoid delusion many of them have that they are "losing their country." (Which in and of itself is amusing...you Tea Party folks never had a country to lose, since it never was yours to begin with. This country has belonged to the highest bidder for longer than any Tea Partier has been alive).

Besides, if those are the true intentions of the Tea Party (resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt), did they not notice when Bush expanded government power to unheard of levels and racked up foreign debt?

"And that seeing merit in retaining the structure of the most ancient and fundamental of all social institutions is something other than an alleged hatred of gays -- particularly since the opposite-gender requirement has characterized virtually every society in all the millennia until just a few years ago?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Hatred of gays? Perhaps not. Prejudice against gays, however, joins religious objections as the foundation of opposition to gay marriage. Denying otherwise strains credulity. I imagine it wouldn't take too long to dig up some statements just like this from 50 or so years ago..."just because Southerners support Jim Crow laws, they must be prejudiced against blacks! What a ridiculous conclusion to make!"

Really though, it doesn't matter that much since a large majority of young people in this country do not oppose gay marriage and they will eventually be the ones in power. Nationwide gay marriage seems like a matter of when, not if. The religious community will for the most part stop bashing gays once they realize it isn't expedient for their own interests to do so. That's how it tends to work. Anyway, back to the column...

"And now the mosque near Ground Zero. The intelligentsia is near unanimous that the only possible grounds for opposition is bigotry toward Muslims. This smug attribution of bigotry to two-thirds of the population hinges on the insistence on a complete lack of connection between Islam and radical Islam, a proposition that dovetails perfectly with the Obama administration's pretense that we are at war with nothing more than "violent extremists" of inscrutable motive and indiscernible belief. Those who reject this as both ridiculous and politically correct (an admitted redundancy) are declared Islamophobes, the ad hominem du jour."

Where does he come up with this stuff? I don't think anyone on the left is denying that the people we are at war with are Muslim.

So, if it's not distrust and prejudice towards Muslims fueling the opposition to the mosque, then what is it? Krauthammer doesn't bother to tell us.

"It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated..."

Yes, liberal thought has indeed been repudiated by opposition to Obama's policies. Just as conservatism was repudiated when nobody liked what Bush was doing.

We see this exact bullshit from each side every time they have a big election year...they declare that their side has "won" the court of public opinion and that the values and beliefs of the other side have been soundly rejected. This is a lot more exciting to believe than the decidedly less uninteresting reality that each side can count on at least 40-45% of the vote in every nationwide election, and that the middle 20% or so who do not consistently vote for one side usually make their votes based more on a desire to change America and/or Washington D.C. by throwing out the current people in charge than it does with any concrete opposition or support towards any political ideology.

"The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them."

Or maybe they're going to lose seats because that's what almost always happens two years after you win the Presidency. People notice that the way things are still sucks, and they go ahead and assume that it must the fault of the party in charge instead of the broken state of our political system that both parties share full responsibility for.

I guess that's enough dissecting the slimy, dishonest partisan hackery that is ruining this country for one night. I need a drink.

____________________

Moravej:

Chris, Excellent points! Liberalism and Conservatism are really diverse ideologies but pundits make ridiculous blanket statements trying to sum up the other side. People need to take issues one by one, learn the facts, then make a decision! I definitely lean left but I don't make stuff up about the other side nor do I defend liberals on every issue.

____________________

Chris V.:

Thanks moravej, I agree with you on all points.

Just remember, everyone..."for every complicated problem there is an easy answer, and it is wrong."

____________________

lat:

I am watching with much laughter as the insecure white christian men in this nation are seeing their power gradually slip away. They see a black president, a country that within the next 5-10 years will allow gays to marry (driving the ultimate stake through the heart of reactionary christians once and for all), a fast growing minority electorate that is making their votes count less and less each election cycle (Ahh! wouldn't it be great to go back to the good old days of Nixon and Reagan when we could all live in our little white enclaves and have our real estate agents and country clubs keep "them" out the neighborhood), a tax burden that they think unfairly punishes them for having to disproportionately give their money to "minority welfare recipients" who they think drink colt 45 and smoke dope all day. The white man's burden... Obama was dead on when he talked about these people clinging to guns, religion, and getting bitter.

____________________

StatyPolly:

That's great thinking there, lat.

Once blacks and Hispanics take over, Jews and gays will be worshiped at their feet. Gays will be forced to marry, and a Jew will be selected Pope.

Oh, and more Muslims too, please. Look at BOBO. He sure loves him some Jews and homos. Just like any other allah fearing Muslim would.

And I pray your half-Jew kids don't ever relive the horrors that your wife had to endure. Instead of going to an all-protestant school, may they end up in an all-Catholic or all-Muslim school, where they surely will find peace and harmony.

____________________

lat:

State Polly,

Thanks for your concern, but my "half jew" kids do quite well in public schools, in addition they are being raised all jewish which is absolutely fine by me. I am also glad you are willing to admit your hatred instead of covering it up like most do on here.

____________________

AlanSnipes:

@gtfanforever:
Clinton lied about who he had sex with. He was found NOT GUILTY by the Senate. Get youfacts straight.
Wasn't that 70 million dollars well spent?

____________________

tjampel:

@StatyPolly:

I didn't realize what a bigot you were until now. I thought I was dealing with an intelligent and relatively sane and unbiased person who just happened to be far to the right of me politically.

Thanks for clarifying that; now I know what I'm dealing with.

Perhaps you'd consider yourself in good company with the likes of Martin Heidegger, one of our greatest thinkers who, at the same time was so rabidly anti-Semitic that got his his own mentor (Husserl) booted from his University chair for being a Jew.

Looking forward to more of your insightful comments about "half-jews" and "homos"; and...since Dr. Laura says it's cool feel free to say "n_____" too 11 or more times each post.

____________________

StatyPolly:

You thought you were "dealing with an intelligent and relatively sane and unbiased person"?

I never attempted to give that impression to anyone here, so that's all on you, pal.

So "half Jew" and "homo" are bigoted words? Is that because they're "halved"? Are words "Jew" and "homosexual" not bigoted? Is "half white" a bigoted term? "Half black"? What about "quarter Jew"? "Thirteen sixteenth Jew"? "Part homo"? On mother's side?

Maybe you can post a list of bigoted terms here. A guide perhaps? So next time I use one, at least it's on purpose.

You should read Krauthammer's piece reference above. He be looking at you, baby.

Martin Heidegger? Never heard of. But here is what Wiki sez:

"Treatment of Husserl

Beginning in 1917, Jewish-born philosopher Edmund Husserl championed Heidegger's work, and helped him secure the retiring Husserl's chair in Philosophy at the University of Freiburg.[42]

On April 6, 1933, the Reichskommissar of Baden Province, Robert Wagner, suspended all Jewish government employees, including present and retired faculty at the University of Freiburg. Heidegger's predecessor as Rector formally notified Husserl of his "enforced leave of absence" on April 14, 1933.

Heidegger became Rector of the University of Freiburg on April 22, 1933. The following week the national Reich law of April 28, 1933, replaced Reichskommissar Wagner's decree. The Reich law required the firing of Jewish professors from German universities, including those, such as Husserl, who had converted to Christianity. The termination of the retired professor Husserl's academic privileges thus did not involve any specific action on Heidegger's part.[43]

Heidegger had by then broken off contact with Husserl, other than through intermediaries. Heidegger later claimed that his relationship with Husserl had already become strained after Husserl publicly "settled accounts" with Heidegger and Max Scheler in the early 1930s.[44]

Heidegger did not attend his former mentor's cremation in 1938. In 1941, under pressure from publisher Max Niemeyer, Heidegger agreed to remove the dedication to Husserl from Being and Time (restored in post-war editions).[45]"

So I dunno.. He also liked boinkin his Jew and "half Jew" students apparently.

"Martin Heidegger had extramarital affairs with Hannah Arendt and Elisabeth Blochmann, both students of his. Arendt was Jewish, and Blochmann had one Jewish parent, making them subject to severe persecution by the Nazi authorities. He helped Blochmann emigrate from Germany prior to World War II, and resumed contact with both of them after the war.[22]"

Who knows. History is a blur, but he doesn't sound all that "rabidly anti-Semitic" to me.

____________________

lat:

StatePolly,

Your White Christian Nation is slipping away. Tick tock tick tock...

____________________

Field Marshal:

This nation is slipping away, not just the white christian part of it. For shame. Seems like the far-eft is happy about it. Have been for quite some time. No idea why either. White guilt perhaps?

And I'm glad to see Glenn Beck honoring a great man and helping to restore honor to this country.

____________________

lat:

Glenn Beck and honorable in the same sentence? LOL! Now that's funny. Let me guess Field Marshall he stands up for "American Values" is that right? Which means exactly what?

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

StatyPolly,
You are a great American. There are a lot more of us them.
Please support our girl Palin in 2010.

____________________

Dave:

PPP finds Miller beating both the Democrat and the "Libertarian" Murkowski.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/08/alaska-senate-race.html

____________________

tjampel:

StatyPolly;

So you've doubled down on your bigoted remarks. Homo has only been used to denigrate homosexuals. It's never been used to simply refer to them. You know this. You're simply being coy and evasive.

And..go ask any Jewish colleagues or bosses "Excuse me, do you have any half-Jew kids in your family" ...use those exact words; let me know what they say. Naturally, you also know that this is offensive to Jews. you could care less.

You know that these words are used to make fun of others yet you intentionally use and reuse these same terms. If you want to be the Dr. Laura of Pollster (without even the protection of context that the not-so-good Doctor can claim) ---go ahead. And I will go ahead and label you a bigot, as that's the appropriate word for those who do exactly as you have done.

Lastly, feel the need to defend someone who embraced the Nazi party AND ITS PRINCIPLES in 1933. Here's a quote from your beloved Wikipedia

"Heidegger joined the Nazi Party (NSDAP) on May 1, 1933, nearly three weeks after being appointed Rector of the University of Freiburg. Heidegger resigned the Rectorship about one year later, in April 1934, but remained a member of the NSDAP until the end of World War II. His first act as Rector was to eliminate all democratic structures, including those that had elected him Rector. There were book burnings on his campus, some of which he successfully stopped, as well as some student violence.

Since the book Heidegger and Nazism (1987) by Victor Farias, who had access to many documents, in particular some preserved in the STASI archives, no one denies Heidegger's historical involvement with Nazism and support of Hitler's policies and person."

There are those who claim Heidegger wasn't directly involved in the Husserl putch. I think otherwise and Heidegger's public embrace of Nazism just weeks after assuming his post do little to sway my opinion. Go for it, defend the Nazi! Defend his contempt for democracy as well.

____________________

tjampel:

Field Marshal:

"I'm glad to see Glenn Beck honoring a great man...."

Why was MLK a great man to you? He was a socialist (far more of a leftist than more corporate-friendly Obama could ever hope to be) whom J Edgar Hoover kept a file on as a potential commie subversive.

He was almost certainly America's greatest "community organizer" (please refer to the 2008 Republican National Convention for context) and the people he organized were all liberals complaining about states which claimed to be enforcing the rights reserved to them under the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. (AKA "State's Rights")

Dr. King was one of the seminal forces of the social justice movement (check with Glenn Beck to better understand how this is a code word for incipient totalitarianism; perhaps you should take a course at "Beck University"). His final years were spent organizing with ultraliberal Northerners(eg. Poor People's March)(union actions---his final speech was delivered to a Garbage Workers' Union I believe), demanding gov handouts (health care, education, food, etc.) and protection for union activities.

If Roosevelt was the worst President in history MLK should be the worst ever political activist for you...or perhaps #2 after Malcom X.

Now it'd easy for ME to say I love Dr King. I just can't figure out why you would say it.

____________________

tjampel:

Dave:

PPP finds Miller beating both the Democrat and the "Libertarian" Murkowski.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/08/alaska-senate-race.html

Miller's barely ahead of Murkowski in a 3-way, which will undoubtedly be volatile, and 50% of the electorate don't know enough about McAdams to decide if they like him or not. That's exactly what happened in the Miller vs Murkowski race where Miller was an unknown and down 30 to Murkowski a little over one month out; look what happened.

If you prefer a candidate who's way underwater in his favorables, is only getting 70% support from his own party, and who is extremely unpopular with independents over a Senator who's a completely safe choice for reelection and who has one of the best favorable/unfavorable rating of an incumbent Senator this year be my guest.

High risk high reward for the sake of purity gives Dems a very slim but fighting chance (just as Miller had a month ago) instead of no chance.

____________________

nick283:

Tj - I don't think MLK ever rounded people up and put them into camps based upon their race so not really fair to compare him to FDR.

I think most people admire MLK for his fight for equal treatment for people of all races under the law. That's something everyone can respect. Thats why Americans honor him.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR